X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 740D2385840D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1705753493;
	bh=m/+qZzL/P/8BEHRw/z/yEw84y4GntC4wqJFaMag7HaQ=;
	h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:
	 List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:
	 From:Reply-To:From;
	b=tT9qpHJqv9uIjIyM+IBJF8v9y8Vi7KMNZ6Jb12y5Si9NFKS1TSORSBVs6KkJXUEHJ
	 Z/tmUPBtxiYqUFmqala/ktUsoCATUTRjJVtTNcjDjFV3nwBhiHapAjWaP+NGAS+ybk
	 oCNt/DZAHhSP7y3AhfsyUHPxtYU0Ya46x6keLA0o=
X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org C912D3858D39
ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org C912D3858D39
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1705753473; cv=none;
 b=O8IfN2yz9rBB1znMrLH7Y+2KjLhZ27TJWdfnpE5VpN50WT4xIin5jw+21g0rgAjST6gD/a5OnCq9hyX2yrPFJ1v2nhLj/vACvuYqq9Pouj2CNz4TnR9m7oCydIXTRJGgZahjDxtnBodrqSeVm0oLoKty3XOLiI3rOF9ZWu9xGTc=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
 t=1705753473; c=relaxed/simple;
 bh=e5Ajflh/ZCnnhuPFDy/ShWm8NmfC4twFxnczfEkdaUQ=;
 h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version;
 b=BYBY5WN439TyLlgvLOJiYhRioH3zrTEsKGv5arkVQo+rOxE8tLlGnyXgwElbIXc7FEVJfq5HsFibCky/enn0ZjrsVAFjSrr5b7k40sv7/aHNeEQb4nXUs5pt1MykwwioFKuZk/LwDKaVxNb3jTQETRr6YWxzyBj1M/qPe0F1fZ0=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 21:24:27 +0900
To: ASSI <Stromeko AT nexgo DOT de>
Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Possiblly bug of cygwin1.dll
Message-Id: <20240120212427.1e69fd3655ece73ecd508def@nifty.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <87v87ov03x.fsf@Gerda.invalid>
References: <20240119224436 DOT 876a055f356f7c6796bc725b AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
 <ZaqHGElhXZIc3NFX AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>
 <20240120131825 DOT 4157c259fe058155137d6fe0 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
 <20240120141349 DOT cde31e62177a0405b0ee9934 AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
 <87v87ov03x DOT fsf AT Gerda DOT invalid>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.7.0 (GTK+ 2.24.30; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From: Takashi Yano via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:13:22 +0100
ASSI wrote:
> Takashi Yano via Cygwin writes:
> > I might find the culprit in gcc's libstdc++ code such as:
> > libstdc++-v3/include/ext/concurrentce.h:
> >   class __mutex
> >   {
> >   private:
> > #if __GTHREADS && defined __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT
> >     __gthread_mutex_t _M_mutex = __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT;
> > #else
> >     __gthread_mutex_t _M_mutex;
> > #endif
> >
> > __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT here is PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER and
> > __gthread_mutex_t is pthread_mutex_t.
> >
> > I think this code vaiolates the POSIX statement.
> 
> So what happens if you undefine __GTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT?

I have tried. The test case:
#include <mutex>
int main()
{
  for (;;) {
    std::mutex *m = new std::mutex;
    m->lock();
    m->unlock();
    delete m;
  }
  return 0;
}
gets working fine. However, this test case:
#include <future>
int func() { return 0; }
int main()
{
  for (;;) {
    std::future<int> f = std::async(std::launch::async, func);
    f.get();
  }
  return 0;
}
still has the problem.

pthread_mutex_t might be initialized also at another place...


-- 
Takashi Yano <takashi DOT yano AT nifty DOT ne DOT jp>

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple